Elite: Harmless - Karma System aka "be the Tamagotchi" - FRESH SALT, MINED RIGHT HERE

I've actually read the thread. Maybe we just see different things in it but I don't feel the quoted comment supports the context it was given in. He's talking about extreme griefing here, killing players because you can and for no other reason. I'm talking about punishing that but not doing it in a way that makes pirating even less rewarding than it already is (it's a horrible way to make a living) and to not make trading easier than it should be (by rewarding players who chose to fly helpless, horrible ship builds).
If you have to habitually kill to pirate then you are not a pirate, your a griefer/ganker pretending to be a pirate. It is that simple as that as far as I am concerned.

Besides which, Sandro did talk about exclusions in anarchy areas thus Anarchy systems would still be no-holds-barred based on that.
 
Last edited:
I never said they did, but in a game where both PvE and PvP play styles are catered for then the players interests define what the game is to them.

*sigh* You're determined, aren't you?

The game has four main roles - PvP combat, PvE combat, mining, trading, and exploration. The majority of which are PvE. Even the one that is PvP can also be played as PvE. The lack of any system to easily find PvP "prey", the huge galaxy in which players can be disbursed, the lack of guilds/fleets/etc, the fact that little to no game rewards are paid out for PvP, and the existence of solo mode all scream "primarily PvE". Even the BGS ignores PvP!

Yes the game can include PvP elements but they are neither rewarded nor essential while PvE elements ARE essential for advancement. Even if YOUR interest is primarilly in PvP (and there's nothing wrong with that) it's NOT what the game designers had in mind. The majority of the game is PvE. "What the game is to you" is perfectly valid from your personal perspective but has zero impact on what the WHOLE game actually IS. The fact that you are only interested in 20% of the whole game doesn't make it a PvP game.
 
Last edited:
People don't currently have the choice of playing in a PvE environment with a theoretically unlimited number of other players. Not to mention the fact that people who don't visit any ED forums (the overwhelming majority of players, considering the size of forum populations compared to sales numbers) wouldn't even be aware of the existence of Mobius.
Even if they are aware of Mobius, the main private group has apparently hit the limit of private groups. There are other supplemental Mobius groups apparently but hopefully you can still see the issue in play.

There are an overwhelming number of players that would like to play in an Open PvE environment based on the Mobius over-population concerns.
 
There are an overwhelming number of players that would like to play in an Open PvE environment based on the Mobius over-population concerns.

While I can see the benefit of an Open PvE mode, I'd be just as happy with a single open mode a real, effective, sensible c&p system.

That's just my opinion of course, your mileage may differ.
 
Last edited:
Some thoughts I shared elsewhere:

The whole problem with the game as is is that it's "Lulz" vulnerable. And those doing it would argue that they're simply bringing content to the game and everyone else should step up and get with the program, etc... the usual nonsense. This also comes down the the karma and C&P arguements going around.

Look, I'm one for having as much verisimilitude in the game as possible. The problem is the game can't actually handle true verisimilitude that would both allow for player freedom of action and provide severe consequence for negative actions. Not without inadvertently narrowing the accessiblity of the game when it comes to the player base. People proposing solutions more often than not are using blinders in terms of both who it would affect and the unintended ramifications.

Certain things have to be artificially restricted (or enforced) outside the game logic, C&P, or verisimilitude of the game in order to keep the greater verisimilitude for the wider player base.
 
While I can see the benefit of an Open PvE mode, I'd be just as happy with a single open mode a real, effective, sensible c&p system.

That's just my opinion of course, your mileage may differ.

My sole issue - and hence non-starter for me - re: C&P system in Open vs. Open PVE mode is I will always, always prefer having an Open PVE mode.

Why? Because bottom line, no matter how good, balanced, etc a C&P system is, by very definition it is a Crime...Then Punishment system. You can still do the crime, then suffer the consequences.

Conceding that many players would actually prefer this, my own .02 cents is there will always be griefers who don't care how bad the punishment is, long as it is possible to do the crime, they will still engage to make your life as much grief as possible. Pain to themselves is irrelevant, just your salt is what counts.

So personally, while any good C&P system would be better than what we have now, I'd still prefer separated Open PVE and Open PVP modes, vs. one Open mode with no matter how good a C&P system can be devised.
 
My sole issue - and hence non-starter for me - re: C&P system in Open vs. Open PVE mode is I will always, always prefer having an Open PVE mode.

Why? Because bottom line, no matter how good, balanced, etc a C&P system is, by very definition it is a Crime...Then Punishment system. You can still do the crime, then suffer the consequences.

Conceding that many players would actually prefer this, my own .02 cents is there will always be griefers who don't care how bad the punishment is, long as it is possible to do the crime, they will still engage to make your life as much grief as possible. Pain to themselves is irrelevant, just your salt is what counts.

That's pretty much why a karma (or whatever you want to call it) system is necessary. You simply can't use in game mechanics to deter this kind of behavior. You can in real life - you put them in jail or if they die they stay dead. But that can't happen here.

In the end you have to acknoweldge the limitations of the game that exist due to its very nature - the ease of credit making and the fact death is a minor speed bump means no matter what the C&P system is, it's not going to stop or even slow down a griefer. And if you try, it will only end up having knock on effects that will tick off legit PvPers for other reasons.

So if you acknowledge that the game mechanics prevents a viable "realisitic" approach that maintains the verisimilitude, you have to look at methods that achieve the intended results outside the mechanics. Simple as that.
 
I get why people don't like being killed. What I don't get is why they play in open if they aren't accepting the risk of that happening. Open is supposed to be more dangerous because of the unknown player element. If you take that danger away we all may as well join mobius. It's not about forcing will on anyone, it's about letting players decide if they want that risk. Right now they have that choice. What's on the table could easily take that away. I do think grief killing needs to be harshly punished. I also really think C&P in general needs to be harsher. I'm all for that. Removing context though and simply aggressively punishing all pvp killing of clean players will only remove a legitimate type of play. Pirating is a legitimate type of play. As proposed the karma system is just the opposite extreme of what we currently have.

To answer your question I used to run the rare goods loop in an unshielded type 6 myself. It was fun in that it had a lot of risk. Nothing is wrong with it but you should have to accept the responsibility of that choice, i.e. the risk involved. The proposed system would just reward players for doing it by making them safer from pvp. It doesn't make any more sense than the current system that rewards pointless murder.

Because the risk is a dupe. Its only a risk for one side of the fight. The same can be said about the people in combat ships attacking trading ships. If they wanted to take a real risk they would attack combat ships while flying T-9s or haulers. Only one side has to take the risk.

Secondly is the fact that Open mode is not just for taking risks. Each mode has its own set of risks. However in Open mode you have the same risk as the other 2 modes, but you have an additional threat from players. That would be fine if all ships were equal and all ships had the same offensive and defensive capabilities. But they do not and they never will.

You have a crowd of people calling griefing PVP and you have another group of people dont really understand what PVP is. PVP is not just direct combat. Its manipulation of the BGS, UA bombing, CG blocking, and system blockading. Combat is just one aspect of PVP.

You have circled around your argument by going back to the point that Open should be more dangerous. The game is Elite Dangerous and not Elite Murderous. Open mode does not mean you should need to be prepared to die at any second for any reason in any location. It just means that you might engage in combat with another player character. Open mode is not murder mode. Its not pirate only mode and its not just for combat. Its simply another mode. Open is just that. Its open for the interaction with other players. Its not Open for the destruction of all other players. Interpreting Open mode as Murder mode is a personal opinion and it is not shared by Developers or majority of the community.

Put it this way. Eventually if things are left the way they are then the only people left in open mode will be the griefers. They wont dare fight each other because that is not why they are playing the game. They are playing the game because in real life if they kicked children, pushed over old people, or threw rocks at the police for fun, they would be in Jail. This is a video game not a psychiatrist simulation.

The responsibility for keeping Open mode as murderous as it currently is now is solely because the trading ships and other non combat ships allow it. I play in open not because its dangerous, but because I can meet other people. In fact all sense of danger left about 2 years ago when this all started. As soon as griefing became the games most notorious and accepted means of public advertisement, the idea of Open mode being dangerous lost all meaning. Its not dangerous in Open mode, its boring, its predictable, and in no way immersive. It breaks anything resembling a believable game universe to pieces. Its like playing quake 3 arena or Duke Nukem all over again. It feels completely fake.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if they are aware of Mobius, the main private group has apparently hit the limit of private groups. There are other supplemental Mobius groups apparently but hopefully you can still see the issue in play.

There are an overwhelming number of players that would like to play in an Open PvE environment based on the Mobius over-population concerns.

Could you imagine if they did show back up. Even if only 10% of mobius players are still active, that would be anywhere from 5k to 10k more people in open. You know, like it was at launch.
 
Pretty much this. Everyone sees the game they want.
I don't. The game I wanted was a fully offline, single-player experience with full Newtonian flight and planetary landings (including atmosphere) built in from the start. I don't see that. Instead I see a multiplayer arcade space shooter with a few bare-bones sops thrown in for the non-fighters: a direct spiritual sequel to the 1984 Elite, and a walkback of many of the huge improvements made in Elites II and III.
 
Could you imagine if they did show back up. Even if only 10% of mobius players are still active, that would be anywhere from 5k to 10k more people in open. You know, like it was at launch.
While I agree with the principle of the Karma system and supporting C&P changes it would not directly entice me personally to play in Open as I will always prefer an Open PvE environment personally. Saying that, my personal views could change once the end effect of the final in-game automated PvP behaviour moderation solution is actually determined. However, due to bandwidth issues certain players I play with have with Mobius/Open, I am still more likely to end up playing in our private group more often than not.

I personally hope the final solution is intelligent enough to note patterns of behaviour across groups of CMDRs as well as there is one easy but real world expensive way of bypassing any single CMDR behaviour tracking system through the use of multiple accounts. In addition, determined CMDRs could probably group together and take shifts in executing the undesirable aggressive PvP behaviours the final solution is intended to moderate. Overall, any final automated PvP behaviour moderation system may need to be too strict in order to be truly effective, but a relatively lenient but effective enough system may suffice providing FD are willing to directly deal with complaints about organised attempts to work around the final automated moderation solution.

Personal views and other complications aside, I am not certain what percentage of the non-Open players would play in Open purely because of the introduction of an effective in-game automated PvP behaviour moderation solution. However, I think FD are hoping for the degree of success that you are indicating.
 
I don't. The game I wanted was a fully offline, single-player experience with full Newtonian flight and planetary landings (including atmosphere) built in from the start. I don't see that. Instead I see a multiplayer arcade space shooter with a few bare-bones sops thrown in for the non-fighters: a direct spiritual sequel to the 1984 Elite, and a walkback of many of the huge improvements made in Elites II and III.
I did not have time or the computing resources back then to personally get seriously into Elite, Elite II or Elite III, and I only really played the original Elite on a handful of occasions, so all I really have to go on is what other people tell me about how ED compares to the preceding three games from a gameplay perspective. That being said, a friend of mine who is a big fan of the Elite series and who has played the original games to quite a significant degree seems to actually disagree with your assessment regarding the older games.

While some players do try to convince everyone else that ED is some how primarily a "multiplayer arcade space shooter" (c/f primarily a PvP frag-fest game), there are at least some of us that realise that this was not FD's design intent and that seems to be primarily why FD are considering implementing some form of automated PvP behaviour moderation system (e.g. the proposed karma system with supporting C&P changes).

Regarding fully Newtonian flight, I have seen similar discussions wrt other space sim games and the general consensus seems to be most people do not want this kind of flight model. It is an interesting idea perhaps, but unless you can control ALL ships reliably and effectively in ED using Flight Assist mode permanently turned off then I suspect you would end up regretting playing any game with a full Newtonian flight model. It is probably worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of aircraft these days are actually fly by wire thus it is not too unbelievable for a futuristic space flight sim to model their flight model along comparable lines.

Regarding planetary landings and atmospheric flight support, we are led to believe it is still on the cards to be implemented but we may have to wait for it to be delivered since they almost certainly want to ensure they have covered all the angles. I suspect the greater issue with this is the degree and nature of the planet side graphical assets especially since I suspect they will want to model Earth pretty faithfully and keep at least some current landmarks recognisable in some shape or form.
 
Last edited:
And when the karma system (however it is manifest) is finally implemented, then 'the players' will still define what the game means to them - within far more clearly defined rules and guidelines. And if that means you still want to be a pirate, or a psychopathic killer, or just an idiot.. then you still can. Only now, you'll have to deal with the consequences of your actions, and THAT is the bit that's getting people's panties in a pickle. The concept of actually being punished for something which is, by definition, a crime, isn't something that you really want to accept as a game mechanic. So you, and others like you, continue to make pointless points, in order to somehow sway the vast majority of players to agree that acting like a criminal in a game with security forces, station laws and an existing (but woefully inadequate) fine system, is absolutely fine, and please let us continue killing you because that's how we play the game.

Not going to happen. You all might as well accept that your freedom of griefing others is coming to an end.

There may be a subset of the PvP community that are upset about being punished for ganking random people but I very much doubt any of the players that came from Eve (which is probably a large percentage of the PvP'ers) will care because the C&P and "karma" systems in Eve are way more aggressive than the proposed system in ED. If you think the ED system is going to put the brakes on ganking, I believe you might be in for an unpleasant surprise when it finally does roll out and has very little effect, which I believe it will.

- - - Updated - - -

*sigh* You're determined, aren't you?

The game has four main roles - PvP combat, PvE combat, mining, trading, and exploration. The majority of which are PvE. Even the one that is PvP can also be played as PvE. The lack of any system to easily find PvP "prey", the huge galaxy in which players can be disbursed, the lack of guilds/fleets/etc, the fact that little to no game rewards are paid out for PvP, and the existence of solo mode all scream "primarily PvE". Even the BGS ignores PvP!

Yes the game can include PvP elements but they are neither rewarded nor essential while PvE elements ARE essential for advancement. Even if YOUR interest is primarilly in PvP (and there's nothing wrong with that) it's NOT what the game designers had in mind. The majority of the game is PvE. "What the game is to you" is perfectly valid from your personal perspective but has zero impact on what the WHOLE game actually IS. The fact that you are only interested in 20% of the whole game doesn't make it a PvP game.

*double sigh* No, you're just not understanding what I'm saying. For a player with 2 billion in the bank and a super engineered, indestructible ganking machine who's only interest in the game is shooting at other commanders and nothing else then the game is primarily PvP for that player. Do you understand? It's not a definition of the games design, it's whatever a player wants it to be because all options are available to them. Do you comprehend? The BGS has nothing to do with anything because it can be completely ignored without having any effect on your gameplay experience. Does that compute? Some people play the game as a single player experience via solo mode and some choose to play it as a multiplayer experience via open or pg, so which is it? Is it single player, or is it multiplayer? Well, it's whatever the player wants it to be because both of those options are available. Is it sinking in yet?
 
Last edited:
*sigh* You're determined, aren't you?

The game has four main roles - PvP combat, PvE combat, mining, trading, and exploration. The majority of which are PvE. Even the one that is PvP can also be played as PvE. The lack of any system to easily find PvP "prey", the huge galaxy in which players can be disbursed, the lack of guilds/fleets/etc, the fact that little to no game rewards are paid out for PvP, and the existence of solo mode all scream "primarily PvE". Even the BGS ignores PvP!

Yes the game can include PvP elements but they are neither rewarded nor essential while PvE elements ARE essential for advancement. Even if YOUR interest is primarilly in PvP (and there's nothing wrong with that) it's NOT what the game designers had in mind. The majority of the game is PvE. "What the game is to you" is perfectly valid from your personal perspective but has zero impact on what the WHOLE game actually IS. The fact that you are only interested in 20% of the whole game doesn't make it a PvP game.

PvP isn't a 'role', it's what happens when the opposition to whatever you happen to be doing is a CMDR...which can be completely incidental, or the entire point, depending upon the intent of the player in question.

Also, the single most significant avenue of advancement, in my opinion, is essentially impossible without PvP.

The BGS has nothing to do with anything because it can be completely ignored without having any effect on your gameplay experience.

I don't find the BGS any easier to ignore than anything else and it certainly has an effect on game play experience.

Regarding fully Newtonian flight, I have seen similar discussions wrt other space sim games and the general consensus seems to be most people do not want this kind of flight model. It is an interesting idea perhaps, but unless you can control ALL ships reliably and effectively in ED using Flight Assist mode permanently turned off then I suspect you would end up regretting playing any game with a full Newtonian flight model. It is probably worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of aircraft these days are actually fly by wire thus it is not too unbelievable for a futuristic space flight sim to model their flight model along comparable lines.

I've played games with full Newtonian flight models before, and several which were considerably more faithful to Newtonian physics that were still easier to control than FA off in Elite: Dangerous (which I can handle).

Fly-by-wide doesn't imply automation and nothing about a full Newtonian flight model precludes the aid of a flight computer or any degree of automation. Fully Newtonian and nearly fully automated is perfectly possible, and frequently done.

Elite: Dangerous' 'FA Off' mode doesn't really make it any more Newtonian than FA On, it just removes a lot of the automation, even where it would not make sense to do so, while leaving the biggest non-Newtonian component (arbitrary velocity limits relative to the current frame of reference) intact. The FA On/Off dicotomy is purely for gameplay purposes, not realism.
 
Last edited:
I don't. The game I wanted was a fully offline, single-player experience with full Newtonian flight and planetary landings (including atmosphere) built in from the start. I don't see that. Instead I see a multiplayer arcade space shooter with a few bare-bones sops thrown in for the non-fighters: a direct spiritual sequel to the 1984 Elite, and a walkback of many of the huge improvements made in Elites II and III.

Atmospheric landing in FE2 and FFE was not much different from our current airless worlds. There were only a few bases on otherwise empty planets.

The only thing we miss from those games is time compression, that allows for long travels in normal space.
 
I don't. The game I wanted was a fully offline, single-player experience with full Newtonian flight and planetary landings (including atmosphere) built in from the start. I don't see that. Instead I see a multiplayer arcade space shooter with a few bare-bones sops thrown in for the non-fighters: a direct spiritual sequel to the 1984 Elite, and a walkback of many of the huge improvements made in Elites II and III.
Yea - you're just going to have to get over that.
 
I did not have time or the computing resources back then to personally get seriously into Elite, Elite II or Elite III, and I only really played the original Elite on a handful of occasions, so all I really have to go on is what other people tell me about how ED compares to the preceding three games from a gameplay perspective. That being said, a friend of mine who is a big fan of the Elite series and who has played the original games to quite a significant degree seems to actually disagree with your assessment regarding the older games.

While some players do try to convince everyone else that ED is some how primarily a "multiplayer arcade space shooter" (c/f primarily a PvP frag-fest game), there are at least some of us that realise that this was not FD's design intent and that seems to be primarily why FD are considering implementing some form of automated PvP behaviour moderation system (e.g. the proposed karma system with supporting C&P changes).

Regarding fully Newtonian flight, I have seen similar discussions wrt other space sim games and the general consensus seems to be most people do not want this kind of flight model. It is an interesting idea perhaps, but unless you can control ALL ships reliably and effectively in ED using Flight Assist mode permanently turned off then I suspect you would end up regretting playing any game with a full Newtonian flight model. It is probably worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of aircraft these days are actually fly by wire thus it is not too unbelievable for a futuristic space flight sim to model their flight model along comparable lines.

Regarding planetary landings and atmospheric flight support, we are led to believe it is still on the cards to be implemented but we may have to wait for it to be delivered since they almost certainly want to ensure they have covered all the angles. I suspect the greater issue with this is the degree and nature of the planet side graphical assets especially since I suspect they will want to model Earth pretty faithfully and keep at least some current landmarks recognisable in some shape or form.

LOL this "consensus" is a complete myth amongst ED players who don't understand what they're talking about - the few individuals claiming they couldn't control their ships in FE2 & FFE were invariably trying to dogfight while at ludicrous speeds with their flight-assist set to a distant navigational FoR - with all thrusters (main, vertical and horizontal) firing at max power attempting to change a 90 km/s vector to whatever direction they pointed the ship, basically flailing around doing out-of-control donuts with the pedal floored.

All you need to do in that situation is apply manual thrusts, so thrust left to move left, right to move right, up to move up etc. etc., the same as you do in ED. Dogfighting in FFE is immeasurably more fun than anything i've encountered in ED. You have far more control, it's totally intuitive and instantly responsive.

The main improvement needed (if only for the above folks who couldn't grasp what they were doing) is better FoR control - being able to select your current vector as your FoR would effectively re-zero your velocity reading without having to physically change speed relative to your navigational vector (basically restoring your "blue zone"-like handling envelope at the touch of a button). Similarly, being able to manually select anything and everything as an FoR, for the same purpose.

This is basically what ED is doing under the hood, via the FSD, except you have no control over it, and it removes virtually all control from you as pilot. So instead we're stuck with ED's lame, illogical "blue zone", pathetic "space speed limits", inability to rotate the ships freely on any axis, especially yaw, etc. etc. which precludes just about anything and everything fun and enticing about spaceflight in the first place.

What ED has done is eviscerate the whole experience of freeform spaceflight - arguably Elite's very essence since '84 - to pander to the planes-in-space pew pew crowd for whom unrestrained spaceflight = "skidding". So instead of spaceships in space, we have submarines in custard. 'Skidding' sorted. LOL.

Space is a vacuum. It's not a fluid. There is no friction. Hence spaceflight really is one big long controlled skid. That's precisely what's so cool about it. With FA-on in FE2 & FFE, and set to similar speeds as ED's submarines, they handle in precisely the same way - roll & pitch, but you also have full yaw control, and the ships rotate at equal speed in all axes regardless of your velocity, with nothing to stop you going as fast as you like in any plane. It's a vastly better game, much more fun because it's spaceflight, not in spite of it.

Open the throttles in FE2 / FFE, your nuclear fusion thrusters kick in and you start to accelerate... until you tell it to stop. It's totally awesome and thrilling on every level, perfectly fulfilling the dream of unconstrained free spaceflight with insane energy reserves.. contrasted with ED, wherein you open the throttles, the ship shudders and groans, lurches forward a little... then basically shuts down, immobilised and unable to do anything at all that you'd associate with 'space flight'.

Every single ship in ED is left eating the dust of every single actual spaceship that has ever flown, from Sputnik to SpaceX. ED ships can't even freefall unpowered at anything approaching realistic velocities. It's an emasculated embarrassment of an attempt at capturing anything of the fun of spaceflight. Not so FE2 / FFE - wherein a mere escape capsule can easily outrun ED's fastest ships, leaving them light-days behind, in 'normal space', without needing warp drives or even time acceleration.

In short, ED does not feature spaceflight. Basic spaceflight is impossible in ED. The game is fundamentally incapable of it, incompatible with it, and never will be. It's fundamentally not a spaceflight game in any meaningful sense, and thus not truly an Elite sequel. And this is about the only point with which i disagree with T'Kitr's post - '84 Elite was the very pinnacle of spaceflight games, as far as what was possible at the time, and compared to any other offerings. In that sense, FE2 and FFE only built further upon that solid foundation. In making a modern-day homage to Oolite (which is basically ED's whole design ethos), ED has utterly abandoned the very paradigm Elite pioneered in the first place. It's no longer a spaceflight game, and soul-destroyingly dull and lifeless precisely because of it.

If we were truly free to fly our own ships - which is Elite's defining premise - this forum would be almost empty, with a player base in the millions. Most of the Eve contingent came here in the first place because of that promise. The shameful tragedy is that most of them seem to be under the illusion that it's been fulfilled - that spaceflight is supposed to be boring, that ED's no-yaw space speed limits blue zone banality really is as good as it gets. In reality it's a betrayal of everything Elite always stood for.
 
Last edited:
If you have to habitually kill to pirate then you are not a pirate, your a griefer/ganker pretending to be a pirate. It is that simple as that as far as I am concerned.

Besides which, Sandro did talk about exclusions in anarchy areas thus Anarchy systems would still be no-holds-barred based on that.

Sigh. It isn't about actually killing. It's that the threat of killing has to seem legitimate or there's no reason to deal. How do you not see this? There are better ways to stop grief killing.
 
Given that Fdev can hardly get content updates out the door in a timely manner, (and even then they're a mostly unenjoyable mess high on bugs & short on content) I wonder what the odds are of a decent c&p system/karma watch daddy being implemented before Star Citizen officially launches?
 
Last edited:
Given that Fdev can hardly get content updates out the door in a timely manner, (and even then they're a mostly unenjoyable mess high on bugs & short on content) I wonder what the odds are of a decent c&p system/karma watch daddy being implemented before Star Citizen officially launches?

You mean something that will work? Never.
 
Back
Top Bottom